G.R. No. L-32243 - People vs. Crisostomo

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32243)

Procedural History and Trial Court Decision

An information for murder was filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. After arraignment and trial, the court found Crisostomo guilty of murder with evident premeditation and treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity of P12,000 to the heirs, and imposed costs. Crisostomo appealed, assigning seven errors contesting the trial court’s findings on admission of guilt, proof of cause of death, treachery, mitigation (drunkenness, voluntary surrender, plea of guilty), and entitlement to privileged mitigation.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant’s seven assigned errors were: (1) erroneous characterization of his admission; (2) insufficient proof of cause of death due to lack of autopsy; (3) erroneous finding of treachery; (4) failure to recognize drunkenness as mitigating; (5) failure to appreciate voluntary surrender as mitigating; (6) failure to treat his offer to plead guilty to homicide as mitigating; and (7) failure to credit two ordinary mitigating circumstances as privileged mitigation in absence of aggravation.

Admission and Evidentiary Effect

The appellant’s testimony that he pointed the gun as a “joke” and that it “suddenly went off” constitutes an admission that he shot the victim. The court correctly treated this as an effective admission of the act of shooting. The fact that he fled after the shooting further corroborates the admission and demonstrates consciousness of guilt. The appellant’s later offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense (homicide) were made after trial began and after the prosecution had presented evidence; the prosecution did not consent and the court denied his request to withdraw the not guilty plea for that purpose.

Proof of Cause of Death and Role of Autopsy

The appellant argued that, absent an autopsy, the prosecution failed to establish the actual cause of death. The court rejected this claim: Dr. Juan Santos, the municipal health officer, performed an external examination the same night and opined that death was due to a through-and-through gunshot wound caused by a bullet. His notes and the death certificate (Exhibits A and A-1) were admitted without objection and, under Section 38, Rule 130, are prima facie evidence of cause of death. Two eyewitnesses also testified that they saw the appellant shoot the victim and that the victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Dr. Santos identified two wounds (left axilla entry ~2.5 mm and right chest exit ~8 mm), described their differing characteristics, and explained the trajectory from left axilla to right chest — supporting that a single bullet caused the fatal injury. The court concluded that the medical and eyewitness evidence established the causal link between the gunshot inflicted by appellant and the victim’s death; the lack of an autopsy did not render the proof insufficient.

Treachery (Alevosia)

The court addressed whether the killing was qualified by treachery (alevosia). Treachery exists where the offender employs means, method, or form of execution that tend directly and specially to insure commission of the crime without risk to himself. Suddenness alone is insufficient; there must be evidence the mode of attack was consciously adopted to prevent defense or retaliation. The court found treachery established here because the appellant invited the victim to drink (a ruse), the victim declined, and appellant then shot him while his back was turned, using a lethal weapon at short range, aiming at a vital part of the body. The victim was unarmed and taken by surprise. The environment and manner of execution satisfied the elements of alevosia; the shooting was deliberately executed to eliminate the victim without risk to appellant.

Intoxication as Mitigating Circumstance

Appellant contended he was drunk and entitled to mitigation under Article 15 RPC (intoxication considered mitigating when not habitual or subsequent to the plan). The court found this claim uncorroborated and self-serving. Appellant admitted only to dizziness and recollected specific details (time, amount drunk, persons present) and acted coherently after the event (he fled, hid, then fled to Manila). These facts indicated his mental capacity was not substantially impaired at the time of the killing. Consequently the court declined to recognize intoxication as a mitigating circumstance.

Voluntary Surrender

The appellant hid for approximately ten days before surrendering on January 4, 1968 upon his parents’ advice. The requisites for voluntary surrender are (a) the offender had not been arrested; (b) he surrendered to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and (c) the surrender was voluntary. The court found the appellant’s surrender met these elements and therefore granted him the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. This mitigates punishment under applicable law.

Plea of Guilty to Lesser Offense and Privileged Mitigation

The court analyzed appellant’s offer to plead guilty to homicide and rejected it as a mitigating circumstance. The requisites for “voluntary plea of guilty” mitigation are (1) spontaneous confession of guilt; (2) confession made in open court before the competent court; and (3) confession made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. Because the appellant offered to plead guilty only after the prosecution presented evidence (and again after the prosecution rested), his offer failed the spontaneity and timeliness requirements; it was not entitled to mitigation. Consequently, the appellant could not claim privileged mitigation based on two ordinary mitigating circumstances (or on the plea) in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

Court’s Resolution of Assigned Errors

On the admission and causation issues, the court held the appellant effectively admitted shooting the victim, and the medical and testimonial evidence adequately established that the single gunshot caused death. The lack of an autopsy did not invalidate proof.
On treachery, the court sustained the qualification of the homicide as murder due to the manner of attack and use of a lethal weapon against an unarmed victim whose back was turned.
On mitigation: the court denied intoxication; gra

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-32243)

Case Citation and Panel

Reported at 243 Phil. 211, First Division, G.R. No. L-32243, decided April 15, 1988.
Decision penned by Justice Gancayco.
Concurring: Chief Justice Teehankee, Justices Narvasa, Cruz, and Grino-Aquino.

Procedural Posture

Information for murder filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against Eugenio Crisostomo.
Arraignment: accused pleaded not guilty.
During trial, accused twice sought to withdraw plea of not guilty and plead guilty to a lesser offense of homicide; the fiscal did not agree and the trial court denied the petition.
Trial court rendered judgment on March 28, 1969, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code; sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua, ordered to indemnify heirs P12,000.00, and to pay costs.
Accused appealed, assigning seven errors; Supreme Court reviewed and modified the penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and increased indemnity, otherwise affirmed.

Material Facts

Date/time/place of incident: Christmas Day, December 25, 1967, between 6:00 and 7:00 PM, Sto. Rosario, Hagonoy, Bulacan.
Parties present: accused Eugenio Crisostomo and victim Romeo Felipe Geronimo.
Events immediately preceding shooting: accused met victim near Romeo Geronimo’s house, invited him to drink at a friend’s place; victim declined.
The shooting: accused suddenly rushed toward victim, who was standing near a store with his back toward the accused, and shot him with a .22 caliber revolver at about one (1) meter distance.
Wound description: bullet entered about two (2) inches below the axilla (left axilla wound) and exited on the right side of the chest about one (1) inch to the sternum (right chest wound); victim fell mortally wounded.
Aftermath: accused ran away; bystanders (Delfin Lopez, Ernesto Trillana, Apolonio Santos, Manuel Tamayo and others) aided the victim and brought him to Reyes Hospital at the Poblacion of Hagonoy where the doctor pronounced him dead on arrival; victim’s body later brought home.
Accused’s conduct after the shooting: fled and hid, sought sanctuary in the chapel of Sto. Rosario, took a tricycle to the poblacion and a La Mallorca bus to Manila; hid for ten (10) days; voluntarily surrendered on January 4, 1968, upon advice of his parents and was detained in municipal jail of Hagonoy.
Prior incident between parties: accused admitted a previous altercation with the victim in which he was hit by the deceased with a bottle in a billiard hall, though he claimed they had since resumed friendly relations.

Charge as Alleged in the Information

Charge: Murder, alleging accused, armed with a firearm and with intent to kill Romeo Felipe Geronimo, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery, attacked, assaulted and shot the victim, hitting him on the chest, causing serious physical injuries which directly caused the victim’s death.
Statutory provision charged: Article 248, Revised Penal Code (murder).

Trial Court Proceedings and Plea Attempts

Accused initially pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
During trial and again after the prosecution rested, accused sought to withdraw his not guilty plea and plead guilty to homicide (a lesser offense) and to prove mitigating circumstances; the fiscal did not agree and the trial court denied the motion.
Trial court convicted accused of murder and imposed Reclusion Perpetua, indemnity P12,000.00, and costs.

Appellant’s Assignments of Error on Appeal

I. Trial court erred in finding defendant-appellant admitted having killed Romeo Geronimo instead of limiting the finding to the true extent of his admission.
II. Trial court erred in finding there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that defendant-appellant killed Romeo Geronimo, because no autopsy was performed and the death certificate proves only death, not cause.
III. Trial court erred in finding defendant-appellant acted with treachery.
IV. Trial court erred in not finding defendant-appellant entitled to mitigating circumstance of drunkenness.
V. Trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
VI. Trial court erred in not appreciating the defendant-appellant’s offer to plead guilty to homicide as a mitigating circumstance.
VII. Trial court erred in not crediting defendant-appellant with the privileged mitigating circumstance arising from the presence of two ordinary mitigating circumstances without aggravating circumstance.

Court’s Analysis — Admission of Shooting and Immediate Cause of Death

Accused’s testimony: claimed he played a joke by drawing his gun and pointing it at the victim; asserted the gun suddenly went off and the bullet hit the victim; he fled, taken by surprise.
Court’s view: the appellant effectively admitted having shot the victim; his flight from the scene upon realizing the gravity of the act corroborates commission of the shooting.
Court concluded the single shot fired by accused was the immediate cause that felled the victim.
The accused’s offer to plead guilty to homicide during trial and after the prosecution rested corroborates his acknowledgment of participation in the killing, but the fiscal’s refusal meant the trial court denied substitution of plea.

Court’s Analysis — Cause of Death, Autopsy, and Medical Evidence

Appellant’s contention: absence of autopsy means actual cause of death not established; death certificate (Exhibit A) establishes only fact of death; Dr. Juan Santos’ testimony insufficient because he did not perform autopsy and was not qualified; poss